Chapter XXXIX.

In the next place, speaking of those who employ the arts of magic and sorcery, and who invoke the barbarous names of demons, he remarks that such persons act like those who, in reference to the same things,1399    ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὑποκειμένοις. perform marvels before those who are ignorant that the names of demons among the Greeks are different from what they are among the Scythians.  He then quotes a passage from Herodotus, stating that “Apollo is called Gongosyrus by the Scythians; Poseidon, Thagimasada; Aphrodite, Argimpasan; Hestia, Tabiti.”1400    Cf. Herodot., iv. 59.  Now, he who has the capacity can inquire whether in these matters Celsus and Herodotus are not both wrong; for the Scythians do not understand the same thing as the Greeks, in what relates to those beings which are deemed to be gods.  For how is it credible1401    ποία γὰρ πιθανότης. that Apollo should be called Gongosyrus by the Scythians?  I do not suppose that Gongosyrus, when transferred into the Greek language, yields the same etymology as Apollo; or that Apollo, in the dialect of the Scythians, has the signification of Gongosyrus.  Nor has any such assertion hitherto been made regarding the other names,1402    For the textual reading, οὔπω δὲ οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ταὐτόν τι ἐρεῖ, Boherellus conjectures εἴρηται, which has been adopted in the translation. for the Greeks took occasion from different circumstances and etymologies to give to those who are by them deemed gods the names which they bear; and the Scythians, again, from another set of circumstances; and the same also was the case with the Persians, or Indians, or Ethiopians, or Libyans, or with those who delight to bestow names (from fancy), and who do not abide by the just and pure idea of the Creator of all things.  Enough, however, has been said by us in the preceding pages, where we wished to demonstrate that Sabaoth and Zeus were not the same deity, and where also we made some remarks, derived from the holy Scriptures, regarding the different dialects.  We willingly, then, pass by these points, on which Celsus would make us repeat ourselves.  In the next place, again, mixing up together matters which belong to magic and sorcery, and referring them perhaps to no one,—because of the non-existence of any who practise magic under pretence of a worship of this character,—and yet, perhaps, having in view some who do employ such practices in the presence of the simple (that they may have the appearance of acting by divine power), he adds:  “What need to number up all those who have taught methods of purification, or expiatory hymns, or spells for averting evil, or (the making of) images, or resemblances of demons, or the various sorts of antidotes against poison (to be found)1403    For αἰσθητῶν, Lommatzsch adopts the conjecture of Boherellus, approved by Ruæus, ἐσθητων. in clothes, or in numbers, or stones, or plants, or roots, or generally in all kinds of things?”  In respect to these matters, reason does not require us to offer any defence, since we are not liable in the slightest degree to suspicions of such a nature.

Εἶτα πρὸς τοὺς χρωμένους, ὥς φησι, μαγείᾳ τινὶ καὶ γοητείᾳ καὶ καλοῦντας ὀνόματα βαρβαρικὰ δαιμόνων τινῶν τοιαῦτα, ὅτι ὅμοιον οὗτοι πράττουσι τοῖς ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὑποκειμένοις τερατευομένοις πρὸς τοὺς μὴ εἰδότας ἄλλα μὲν αὐτῶν εἶναι τὰ ὀνόματα παρ' Ἕλλησιν ἄλλα δὲ παρὰ Σκύθαις. Εἶτ' ἐκτίθεται ἀπὸ Ἡροδότου λαβὼν ὡς τὸν μὲν Ἀπόλλωνα Γογγόσυρον καλοῦσι Σκύθαι, τὸν δὲ Ποσειδῶνα Θαγιμάσαδα, τὴν δ' Ἀφροδίτην Ἀργίμπασαν, Ἑστίαν δε Ταβιτί. Ἐξετάσει δὲ ὁ δυνάμενος, μή πῃ καὶ περὶ τούτων σὺν Ἡροδότῳ ὁ Κέλσος ψεύδεται, ἅτε μὴ ἐπισταμένων Σκυθῶν τὰ αὐτὰ Ἕλλησιν ὑποκείμενα περὶ τῶν νομιζομένων θεῶν. Ποία γὰρ πιθανότης τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα Γογγόσυρον παρὰ Σκύθαις καλεῖσθαι; Οὐ γὰρ ἡγοῦμαι ὅτι μεταλαμβανόμενος εἰς ἑλλάδα φωνὴν ὁ Γογγόσυρος τὴν ἐτυμολογίαν παρίστησι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, ἢ ὁ Ἀπόλλων εἰς τὴν Σκυθῶν διάλεκτον τὸν Γογγόσυρον σημαίνει. Οὕτω δὲ οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ταὐτόν τις ἐρεῖ· ἀπ' ἄλλων γὰρ ὁρμώμενοι Ἕλληνες πραγμά των καὶ ἐτυμολογιῶν οὕτως ὠνόμασαν τοὺς παρ' ἑαυτοῖς νομιζομένους θεούς, ἀπ' ἄλλων δὲ Σκύθαι, οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἀπ' ἄλλων μὲν Πέρσαι ἀπ' ἄλλων δὲ Ἰνδοὶ ἢ Αἰθίοπες ἢ Λίβυες, ἢ ὅπως φίλον ἑκάστοις ὀνομάζειν, μὴ μείνασιν ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης καὶ καθαρᾶς ἐννοίας τοῦ τῶν ὅλων δημιουργοῦ. Αὐτάρκως δ' ἡμῖν εἴρηται καὶ ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων, βουλο μένοις παραστῆσαι μὴ ταὐτὸν εἶναι Σαβαὼθ ἢ ∆ία, ὅτε καὶ περὶ τῶν διαλέκτων τι ἀπὸ τῶν θείων παρετιθέμεθα γραμμά των. Ἑκόντες οὖν ὑπερβαίνομεν ταῦτα, ἐν οἷς ἐπὶ ταυτολογίαν ἡμᾶς ὁ Κέλσος καλεῖ. Εἶτα πάλιν φύρων τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς μαγικῆς γοητείας καὶ προσάπτων τάχα μὲν οὐδενὶ τῷ μὴ εἶναι τοὺς μαγγανεύοντας προφάσει τῆς κατὰ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦτον θεοσεβείας, τάχα δέ τισι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς εὐεξαπατήτους χρωμένοις τοιούτοις, ἵνα δοκοῖεν θείᾳ δυνάμει τι ποιεῖν, ἐκτίθεταί τινα λέγων· Τί με δεῖ καταριθμεῖν ὅσοι καθαρμοὺς ἐδίδαξαν ἢ λυτηρίους ᾠδὰς ἢ ἀποπομπίμους φωνὰς ἢ κτύπους ἢ δαιμονίους σχηματισμούς, ἐσθήτων ἢ ἀριθμῶν ἢ λίθων ἢ φυτῶν ἢ ῥιζῶν καὶ ὅλως παντοδαπῶν χρημάτων παντοῖα ἀλεξιφάρ μακα; Περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἀπαιτεῖ ἡμᾶς ἀπολογήσασθαι τὸ εὔλογον, ἅτε οὐδὲ κατὰ ποσὸν ἐνεχομένους τοιαύταις ὑπονοίαις.